U.S.-China tariff truce and S. Korea’s strategic role: Insights from APEC and beyond

Welcome to Within The Frame, where we bring the most pressing issues across the globe into focus. I'm Kim Mok-yeon.

The world's two largest economies—America and China—have called a fragile truce in their high-stakes tariff war.

Following a surprise agreement in Geneva, both sides agreed to drastically lower mutual tariffs for 90 days, buying time for further negotiations.

But the clock is already ticking—and the global market isn't waiting.

Shipping rates have spiked, businesses are rushing deliveries, and countries like South Korea are caught in a new diplomatic and economic balancing act.

At the APEC meetings in Jeju, those tensions spilled into the open, with China sharply criticizing U.S. trade policy and calling for an extension of the truce.

All these developments come as South Korea is working to navigate the shifting power dynamics and prepare for July's critical bilateral package talks with Washington.

To break into the updates at this year's APEC, we are joined in the studio by Min Jeong-hun, Professor at Korea National Diplomatic Academy. Welcome.

Also joining us online is Jeff Moon, President of China Moon Strategies, LLC and Former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for China. Great to see you.

1. (MOON) Let's start with Mr. Moon. With the Geneva agreement now in effect and U.S.-China tariffs temporarily lowered, U.S. importers are rushing to front-load shipments, and markets are reacting sharply. Do you think we're already seeing signs that the truce is shifting trade patterns? Also, tell us, what risks loom as the 90-day deadline approaches?

2. (MIN) Building on that, just days after the Geneva deal, China used the forum to sharply criticize U.S. unilateral tariffs. How should we interpret China's strategy here?

3. (MOON) In parallel to the diplomatic signaling, we saw a dramatic spike in freight costs and rapid logistical shifts. How do you interpret this sudden market reaction? Is it a sign of underlying instability or just a practical rush to beat the deadline?

4. (MIN) And now we're seeing Beijing attempt to shape the narrative further. Chinese state media is publicly calling for an extension to the 90-day truce, saying the timeframe is too short. What do you make of this move—an early negotiation tactic, or a sign Beijing is already trying to shift the rules of the deal?

5. (MOON) In line with this, recent market surveys suggest many global investors now expect the U.S.-China tariff rate to settle at 30 percent within six months. How credible is this projection in your view, and what long-term economic adjustments should Korean industries be preparing for?

6. (MIN) Let's turn to South Korea's role. As APEC chair, Korea played a key role in moderating tensions and securing a joint statement, despite opposing views between the U.S. and China. What does this achievement say about Korea's position and diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific trade architecture?

7. (MOON) On the surface, the APEC joint statement reaffirmed multilateralism and WTO reform. But many countries remain skeptical. Do you think this kind of rhetoric still carries economic weight, or is it largely symbolic?

8. (MOON) Now, looking more closely at Korea's bilateral front — the Korea-U.S. high-level meeting on May 16, the second since the April '2+2' talks, marked a critical checkpoint. There, industry-specific issues like shipbuilding and semiconductors reportedly came up. How likely is it that Korea can extract tariff relief on these sectors by offering deeper industrial cooperation?

9. (MIN) Following that, how do you assess the broader effect of the U.S.-China deal on Washington's tone or strategy in talks with Korea? Does it increase pressure, or create a window of flexibility?

10. (MIN) And as we look ahead to the APEC Leaders' Summit in Gyeongju this fall, what groundwork must Korea lay now — diplomatically or structurally — to solidify its trade leadership role in the region?